Reason10 wrote:
The following is from Human Action, by the world's greatest economist of all time: Ludwig Von Mises
3. Inequality
The inequality of incomes and wealth is an inherent feature of the market economy. Its elimination would entirely destroy the market economy."
What those people who ask for equality have in mind is always an increase in their own power to consume. In endorsing the principle of equality as a political postulate nobody wants to share his own income with those who have less. When the American wage earner refers to equality, he means that the dividends of the stockholders should be given to him. He does not suggest a curtailment of his own income for the benefit of those 95 per cent of the earth's population whose income is lower than his.
That says it all.
Let's parse the Mises statements one by one.
"The inequality of incomes and wealth is an inherent feature of the market economy. Its elimination would entirely destroy the market economy."Yup! I agree.
"What those people who ask for equality have in mind is always an increase in their own power to consume. In endorsing the principle of equality as a political postulate nobody wants to share his own income with those who have less. When the American wage earner refers to equality, he means that the dividends of the stockholders should be given to him."There are some interesting assumptions here. One is that no-one will speak for a reduction in income inequality if he/she will lose by it. What about those who give to charities? Are they not reducing their own net income by giving to those who have less? Mises takes a very dim view of humanity indeed. This is sometimes seen in the writings of those who postulate man as an economic rationalist without the leavening influence of morality and, dare I say it, human kindness.
Note the 'straw man' of 'equality' as opposed, say, to a tolerable level of inequality. I rather doubt that any educated person would suggest that absolute equality should prevail.
As to having the dividends of the stockholders given to him, again note the absolutes. Many would argue that what should be given the worker is nothing less than a fair share for his/her expenditure of a non-renewable resource - labor.
"He does not suggest a curtailment of his own income for the benefit of those 95 per cent of the earth's population whose income is lower than his."Again, we find man portrayed as a single-dimensioned creature. While simplification has its place, it should always be regarded with some suspicion.
Thus, I cannot subscribe to Mises 'saying it all'. Rather, I have noted what he has not said -- that man is more than a cog in the reified machine called 'Economics'.